bahman wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:19 pm
Well, I am saying that you cannot stop a chain of causality if you cannot break laws of nature.
I think the conservation of information principle says something to that effect. So agree.
I think we can agree on the fact that we can stop our thoughts whenever we want.[/quote]I can concede this, even if I don't agree. It doesn't matter to my point. A robot can do this, and I don't think the robot is less free than I am. But cessation of mental activity is the medical definition of death for a biological creature with a central nervous system, just so you know how I view this point.
Well, there is this tendency that your thoughts goes in specific direction and you suddenly decide to stop the chain of thought. If that is not breaking the chain of causality then it is what?
Good question. The chain of causality from X (say the existence of vanilla as an ice cream option) is broken if the state of everything (not just you) is the same as if the option was not there. If there is any
difference between the two states, that difference is caused by the vanilla option, and the chain is not broken. To break it, you would have to show two separate paths leading to identical states, a violation of said physics principle mentioned above.
Let's say that you make a firm decision to cross a road. Doesn't that mean that there is a chain of causality which cause you to move?
Which will cause you to move, yes. You may not be already moving at the time the firm decision is made, but you probably are. It is hard to imagine a 'firm decision', but it can be done. You are in a motorized wheel chair with a go-button and no abort button. Once the go-button is pressed, the decision cannot be undone and you cross even if you see mortal danger as the button is pressed.
You then see a train. And stop.
Wasn't a firm decision then, was it?
What caused you to stop terminated the previous chain of causality?
New information. A different cause. All actions have multiple causes and are not simple linear chains. Each action has uncountable causes. You seeing a train is a new cause that changes the action. My idea above with the go-button was a more firm example. Once pressed, you are fated to cross despite any update to your will.
Otherwise you continue your act and probably have an accident.
Yes, which is why it is hard to imagine a true firm decision.
I don't need to talk about immaterial mind. I just need to show that materialism is inconsistent.
Still waiting for that. Your premises are not materialistic ones, so you are not really showing inconsistent a view that you are not discussing.
So you are not aware of options when you make a conscious decision?
Not as you define conscious decision, no. Awareness of options is a continuation of the causal chain of the options. You said conscious decisions are not continuation of chains, so it must be done without awareness of options or awareness of the necessity of a decision even. No awareness of anything at all.
1) Conscious decisions is the result of matter formation
2) The existence of conscious decision means that one can break causality chain
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore conscious decision is not the result of matter formation
This is different than the OP. You redefined conscious decision as the breaking of a chain now, not the creation of a new one. Is this a start from scratch attempt with the old definitions thrown away?
What is meant by the 'break of a causality chain'? It seems to mean that options are not involved in the cause of the decision, which is sort of how you've been both asserting and denying.
Anyway, in short, I think number 2 says that the existence of your notion of a decision means one can violate natural physics, and materialism indeed does not support that, so it denies that you do any such thing when you make a decision. Materialism has no problem with you considering material decisions to be incompatible with 'one can break causality chain', so materialism is still completely consistent.
Noax wrote:A new chain must be completely uncaused, or it wouldn't be new[/b].
That (bold part) makes no sense to me.
How can you talk about causal chains if you don't understand what they are?
I don't know how to word it in simpler terms. If a decision D is caused by C (say knowledge of the availability of vanilla as an option), then D is one effect of cause C, and D is the cause of the action V (getting vanilla cone) (the chain designated C->D->V), and thus a continuation of chain that includes C. But you say D is a new chain, which means it has no prior cause, which means it cannot be an effect of C. If C->D->V, then D is not at the front of the chain, and it is not a new chain. You describe it as just D->X meaning that the decision is not a function of option C or any other option, and V is not likely to be the decision made since D is made without knowledge of it. So I put an X there as an unknown effect of a random uncaused decision.